Laser peripheral iridotomy across the spectrum of primary angle closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To study the effectiveness of Nd:YAG laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) for primary angle closure in Asian Indian patients. METHODS: Retrospective analyses of patients who underwent LPI and completed a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Eyes were classified as primary angle-closure suspects (PACS), primary angle closure (PAC), and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). The indications for LPI, requirement of medication, and subsequent clinical course were studied in each group. RESULTS: 103 eyes of 55 patients were analyzed. The mean (SD) follow-up was 45.6 (2) months. The mean age in women was less than in men (55.7 [8.3] vs. 62.1 [7.8] years).Twenty-seven eyes were classified as PACS, 43 eyes as PAC, and 33 eyes as PACG. After LPI, no eye with PACS progressed to PAC or PACG. Four of 43 eyes (9.3%) with PAC progressed to PACG.Twenty-five of the 33 eyes (75.8%) with PACG did not progress after LPI during the study period. Patients with <or=2 quadrants of angle closure at baseline had 7.7% odds of progression compared with 100% odds in patients with >2 quadrants of angle closure (risk ratio 12.9). INTERPRETATION: After LPI, the rate of progression from PAC to PACG was less than expected from the reported natural course of the disease, and the majority of eyes with PACG remained stable. LPI appears to alter the natural course of PACS, PAC, and PACG favourably.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".